Why is A2A still Using fsx

[JJJ]

I think (because of X-Plane 11 release) it is time to reopen this thread and probably try to change A2A's approach?
Also, I am willing to give a help with coding (code conversions).

[CAPFlyer]

I think Scott and Lewis put it pretty succinctly in prior posts on the thread - it's not open for discussion. Nothing we do will change the economics of developing for XPlane, Aerofly, or any other platform that is not Microsoft engine based. This isn't about code conversion. It's about access to read and modify the core engine and behavior of the sim itself. No platform beyond P3D, FSX, and FSW allow the kind of access that Accusim needs to work as designed. If they were to move to another platform (like XPlane) they would have to completely re-write the code to work with the limited access and it would most likely end up with an inferior product. It's not that they're deaf or haven't heard the repeated requests guys. They've made their decision and it's not going to change unless the circumstances change to make it feasible without investing years of development do create Accusim on a new platform from scratch. There is a reason that PMDG, Aerosoft, and several other "Study Level" developers haven't released any of their major products for XPlane - the SDK. Until it gets to the level that it is for the FSX/ESP engine, it will continue to be that way. Unfortunately, Laminar Research has shown no intention to do so anytime soon.

[JJJ]

I understand your arguments and that is why I offered my help. I do like challenges and this one looks like well spend effort.

... There is a reason that PMDG, Aerosoft, and several other "Study Level" developers haven't released any of their major products for XPlane - the SDK...

Sorry, that is no more the truth. For example the PMDG's DC-6:
http://www.precisionmanuals.com/Product ... roduct=106

[patful]

Sorry, that is no more the truth. For example the PMDG's DC-6:
http://www.precisionmanuals.com/Product ... roduct=106

Notice that it hasn't been updated for XP11? I don't think serious developers want to offer (and keep updating) a product for a platform that radically changes every few months.

[Tigh]

Notice that it hasn't been updated for XP11? I don't think serious developers want to offer (and keep updating) a product for a platform that radically changes every few months.

I suspect they just think it's not economically viable.

I help run a fairly large big tin VA: last month we logged more than half our flights in P3D (and the vast majority of those in v4) and, while we've supported X-Plane for a couple of years now, only 5.7% in XP. I get the impression the XP community are a passionate, vocal minority but just that, a minority and a small one at that. Why would a developer with limited resources invest time and effort in a platform with such low utilisation (our figures consistently suggest)? I have no issue with A2A supporting FSX, they don't have to deal with the VAS issues the big tin developers come up against, unless it starts to negatively impact release time frames for what looks like the dominant platform - P3Dv4.

[JJJ]

Sorry, that is no more the truth. For example the PMDG's DC-6:
http://www.precisionmanuals.com/Product ... roduct=106

...I don't think serious developers want to offer (and keep updating) a product for a platform that radically changes every few months.

Do you say that progressivelly developed platform as X Plane is bad movement? Yeah, then I understand your blind support of FSX and I feel sorry to you. In FSX you can not expect any progress... That is why I definitely abandoned FSX a year ago. And I am sure I am not alone. Just remember my words in two years. Bye, bye, guys.

[CAPFlyer]

Sorry, that is no more the truth. For example the PMDG's DC-6:
http://www.precisionmanuals.com/Product ... roduct=106

Notice that it hasn't been updated for XP11? I don't think serious developers want to offer (and keep updating) a product for a platform that radically changes every few months.

It hasn't been updated because they're still finishing the FSX version and updates. They've updated progress on the DC-6 "upgrade" for XPlane 11 on the forum consistently, including a post by Robert just a couple weeks ago.

[CAPFlyer]

I understand your arguments and that is why I offered my help. I do like challenges and this one looks like well spend effort.

... There is a reason that PMDG, Aerosoft, and several other "Study Level" developers haven't released any of their major products for XPlane - the SDK...

Sorry, that is no more the truth. For example the PMDG's DC-6:
http://www.precisionmanuals.com/Product ... roduct=106

Sorry, but the DC-6 was not and is not considered a "Major Release" by PMDG. They simply bill it as their "first release" for XPlane. They did it to test out what they could do within XPlane, but even they don't call it a "Study Level" simulation. It is very in depth, yes, but there have been simplifications made because of things they couldn't do with the XPlane SDK. Additionally, notice it doesn't have an FMS. Yes, I know the DC-6 doesn't have one in real life, but that's the point. They spent time and money developing a NON GLASS aircraft. Why? Because the SDK doesn't allow them to do many things, like a full FMS. All of the FMS's out there for XPlane right now are just skins of the default one. The SDK does not allow access to that part of the sim needed to build a full FMS simulation. They've been clear that this will be a one-time product for XPlane similar to the MD-11, Beech 1900, and J41 for FSX. There will not be a "family" of DC-6s released in the future for either platform because that's not what its purpose was.

[crippy]

I am strangely glad this thread got brought back up again.

I joined the forums last year (And have loved it, wish I did earlier) so I never got to see this thread. I too was always wondering why not XP A2A?

After reading the whole thread now this all makes perfect sense!

I had talked about it in other threads very little, but I had always assumed the cost to re-tool the operation would be too high.

Now I see that platforms at-least the ones mentioned here won't really let A2A re-tool to incorporate the necessary code and features.

If you can't code what you want, and are at the mercy of platform dev's to help or not help, then why even bother?

[JJJ]

That is generally negative and unconstructive approach. However, it is always easier to find a hundred reasons why it is impossible to realize something than trying to find a way how to make it.

[Oracle427]

This is like the Apple closed architecture debate. X-Plane works well in the tighter scope it has defined for itself. If they open up, I'm sure that the devs will come.

[AKar]

I've always wondered the fanaticism that surrounds many sim platforms and developers. It is not like the choices we've got are mutually exclusive. I am active on two platforms, P3D and DCS. They both have their things in which one is clearly better than the other, that's why I use and enjoy using both. There are several high-end developers that 'specialize' on one platform, so to say, A2A is not alone. I find no issue that Belsimtek for instance does not develop for the FSX/P3D, as long as A2A and FSL and so on do their magic there. And vice versa. I'd figure a similar view should apply to the XP folks. Why not to enjoy and use all we've got in what they are good at?

-Esa

[bullfox]

Because P3D4.X is still being debugged. In FSX the bugs have all been killed, corraled, or turned into features.

[CodyValkyrie]

That is generally negative and unconstructive approach. However, it is always easier to find a hundred reasons why it is impossible to realize something than trying to find a way how to make it.

Here’s a damn good reason:

$$$$

[JJJ]

That is generally negative and unconstructive approach. However, it is always easier to find a hundred reasons why it is impossible to realize something than trying to find a way how to make it.

Here’s a damn good reason:

$$$$

Yes, that is it! That is the reason why to make it!